M/S Nayan Enterprises Through One Of Its Partners Raju Kumar Mandal vs. Commissioner Of State Tax State Of Jharkhand Jharkhand Goods And Service Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Nayan Enterprises, challenged an adjudication order dated April 7, 2022, and its summary in Form GST DRC-07, concerning the period April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on May 29, 2022, and restored on July 4, 2023. The petitioner argued that this cancellation prevented them from filing an appeal within the prescribed limitation period. They also contended that the adjudication order violated principles of natural justice as no hearing notice was provided. The respondents argued that show cause notices were issued and not responded to, making the natural justice claim invalid. They further submitted that the petitioner's delay in filing the writ petition, instituted on July 26, 2023, was not justified, and the cancellation of registration did not preclude them from approaching the High Court.
Held
The Court held that the petition lacked merit. Firstly, it was not satisfied that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for not availing the alternate remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the petitioner's registration was cancelled on May 29, 2022, but the adjudication order was dated April 7, 2022. For the period between April 7, 2022, and May 29, 2022, there was nothing preventing the petitioner from filing an appeal. The argument that the petitioner was unaware of the order was not substantiated. Secondly, the Court found no indication that an appeal would not have been entertained despite the registration cancellation, as the adjudication order pertained to a period when the petitioner had valid registration. Thirdly, the Court observed that the writ petition was filed on July 26, 2023, and while no strict limitation period applies to Article 226, petitions should be filed with utmost dispatch. The cancellation of registration did not prevent the petitioner from filing a writ petition earlier. Fourthly, the petitioner did not submit any arguments on the merits of the demand, relying solely on the ex-parte nature of the order. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. GLAXO SMITH KLINE Consumer Health Care Limited and Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Ors. to emphasize that extraordinary jurisdiction should not be exercised to help parties defeat statutory limitation periods or bypass statutory remedies. The Court declined to exercise its discretion under Article 226.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not availing the alternate remedy of appeal against the adjudication order dated April 7, 2022, considering the cancellation and subsequent restoration of its GST registration? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of sufficient cause and alternate remedy). 2. Whether the adjudication order dated April 7, 2022, is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the alleged non-issuance of a hearing notice to the petitioner? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation of its GST registration from May 29, 2022, to July 4, 2023, provided sufficient cause for not filing an appeal within the statutory limitation period. They also claimed the adjudication order was passed in violation of natural justice principles due to lack of a hearing notice. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to respond to show cause notices, rendering the natural justice claim baseless. They argued that a petitioner cannot allow the limitation period to lapse and then invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court on a specious plea of sufficient cause. They cited the Supreme Court's stance against using writ jurisdiction to defeat statutory regimes, including limitation periods, and emphasized that the High Court ordinarily avoids entertaining petitions when an equally efficacious alternate remedy exists.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026:JHHC:6994-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 4197 of 2023
M/s. Nayan Enterprises, having its office at Kothan, P.O.- Kothan, P.S.- Kothan, District- Godda, through one of its partners Raju Kumar Mandal, son of Late Mahesh Prasad Mandal, resident of Kothan, P.O. & P.S.- Kothan, District- Godda
... ... Petitioner Versus
Commissioner of State Tax, State of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax, Ranchi
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax, Godda and Dumka, having his office at P.O. & P.S.- Godda, District- Godda
State Tax Officer, Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax, Godda and Dumka, having his office at P.O. & P.S.- Godda, District- Godda
... … Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I
----- Order No. 06
Dated: 16.03.2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner challenges the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022, summary of which was issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated 07.04.2022. The impugned order concerns the period April 2020 to March 2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that by order dated 29.05.2022, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled. The same was restored only on 04.07.2023. Therefore, during the period 29.05.2022 and 04.07.2023, the petitioner was precluded from appealing the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022. She, therefore, submits that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not
2026:JHHC:6994-DB
2
instituting an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation of three months, extendable by one month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022 was in violation of the principles of natural justice because no notice of hearing was given to the petitioner.
Mr Aditya Kumar, learned A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that this petition was instituted only on 26.07.2023. He submitted that show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, which it did not respond to. Therefore, the claim of failure of natural justice is bereft of any merit.
Mr Aditya Kumar submits that a petitioner cannot allow the limitation period to lapse and, after that, invoke this Court’s extraordinary juri iction on the specious plea that the petitioner had a sufficient cause for not instituting the appeal within the period of limitation. He submitted that this is a case of fraud and therefore, no leniency must be extended to the petitioner.
We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that there is no merit in this petition. Brief reasons for this conclusion follow.
Firstly, we are not satisfied that any sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for not availing of the alternate remedy of appeal to question the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner’s registration was cancelled only on 29.05.2022, though, w.e.f. 31.03.2022. For the period between
2026:JHHC:6994-DB
3
2022 and 29.05.2022, nothing prevented the petitioner from instituting an appeal. The argument that the petitioner was unaware of the order dated 07.04.2022 is not made good and is, in fact, contrary to the record.
Secondly, nothing is shown to us to indicate that the petitioner’s appeal would not have been entertained because registration was cancelled by order dated 29.05.2022. Admittedly, the adjudication order dated 07.04.2022 relates to the period April 2020 to March 2021, during which the petitioner had a registration.
Thirdly, this petition was instituted only on 26.07.2023. Surely, the cancellation of registration did not preclude the petitioner from instituting a petition before this Court well within the limitation period prescribed under the statute for instituting appeals. Though no limitation period as such is prescribed for invoking this Court’s extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution, still, it is expected that the petitioner institutes a writ petition with utmost dispatch, assuming that there was any real difficulty in instituting an appeal before the appellate authority.
Fourthly, nothing whatsoever was submitted on the merits of the matter or the probable defence to resist the demand. Only ground urged was that the impugned order was ex parte and allegedly not served on the Petitioner. If, despite the service of a show cause and the grant of opportunities, the Petitioner does
2026:JHHC:6994-DB
4
not avail of the same, the resulting order cannot be attacked as ex parte.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. GLAXO 2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to the 2026:JHHC:6994-DB
5
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rikhab In paragraph-13 of Rikhab Chand Jain (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that although there is no period of limitation for invoking the writ juri iction of a High Court under Article 226, all that the courts insist is the invocation of its juri iction with utmost expedition and, at any rate, within a “reasonable period”. What would constitute “reasonable period” cannot be put in a straitjacket, and it must invariably depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Nonetheless, the period of limitation prescribed by an enactment for availing the alternate remedy provided thereunder in certain cases thus provides an indication as to what should be the reasonable period within which the writ juri iction has to be invoked.
2026:JHHC:6994-DB
6
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of GLAXO SMITH KLINE Consumer Health Care Limited (Supra), Rikhab Chand Jain (supra), Thansingh Nathmal (supra) and A.V. Venkateswaran (supra), we decline to entertain this petition by exercising our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) March 16, 2026 Ritesh/Pawan A.F.R. Uploaded on 17.03.2026
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.